ArticleActa orthopaedica2022
Patient-reported outcome after primary and aseptic revision hip arthroplasty: 1-year follow-up of 3,559 primary and 406 revision THAs in an institutional registry.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is the use of primary cementless stem in revision total hip arthroplasty a reliable option? A systematic review.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2026Review
- Defining clinically meaningful values in the oxford hip score and factors associated with their achievement following aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- GREM1 acts in leptin receptor-expressing skeletal cells to mediate peri-implant fibrosis.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Revision Hip Arthroplasty Through a Gluteal-Sparing Extended Posterior Approach May be Able to Achieve Similar Functional Outcomes to Primary Hip Arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- Can KOOS-PS be replaced with a simple anchor question in patients after total knee arthroplasty?: an agreement study of 2,478 primary surgeries.Acta orthopaedica · 2024Article
- Clinical outcomes and survival rates of a uncemented modular revision stem system in hip arthroplasty: a 10-year single-institution study on a frail population.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Global mapping of institutional and hospital-based (Level II-IV) arthroplasty registries: a scoping review.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024Article
- The extent of first-time THA revision is not associated with patient-reported outcomes at 1-year follow-up: a study of 426 aseptic revisions.Acta orthopaedica · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose - Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and revision THA are important information in the preoperative shared decision-making process. We present 1-year results on pain, function, and quality of life following primary and revision THA. Patients and methods - From 2010 to 2018, 3,559 primary THA and 406 revision THAs were included in our institutional quality registry. PROMs were registered preoperatively, 3 months, and 1 year after surgery, numeric rating scale (0-10) for pain during mobilization and at rest, healthrelated quality of life (EQ-5D), and a hip-specific physical function score (HOOS-PS). 2 anchor questions were asked 1 year after surgery concerning joint function and willingness to go through surgery again. Results - There were statistically significant improvements in all PROMs at the 3-month follow-up in both groups. All PROMs improved more in the primary group relative to the revision group. 1 year after surgery, pain during mobilization was reduced with a mean change of 5.1 (SD 2.6) for primary THA and 2.9 (SD 3.0) for revision THA. 93% of primary THA patients reported both better function 1 year after surgery and that they would have gone through surgery again, compared with 78% and 79% in the revision THA group. Interpretation - Primary THA patients reported better function and more pain relief than the revision THA group 1 year after surgery. Pain during mobilization shows the most marked improvement in both groups, which is important preoperative information for patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.